Humble request to help me realize the truth

[OM-ar]

Is it realised that in the experience of all the senses, that 'I' is only ever a label. It is not something can be found actively performing any of the senses?

Yes

In the experience itself of 'choosing' what is making the decision? Is there an 'I' to be found making the choice? Can whatever is making the choice be found at all?

No, nothing can be found making the decision.

'I' as we have said in a general sense refers to 'body' and 'mind'. Do you find a body making the choice? Do you find a mind making the choice?

The decision happens without any indication of a 'decider'.

If not . . . if it is said 'I am choosing' what is the 'I' in the statement?

The 'I' in the statement is only a conditioned assumption of what might be performing the choosing.

In the experience of raising the hand into the air, what was making that happen?

There is no specific individual thing that is raising the hand in the air.

What was causing the muscles to contract and the limb to raise?

The brain, spinal cord, and a multitude of motor neurons and neurotransmitters cause the muscles to contract but that is not a conscious realization, in the experience. The scientific explanation is only a memory of something learned.

Is there an 'I' making that happen to be found in the experience?

No, nothing can be found making the hand raise in the air.

Can whatever is making that happen be found at all?

No, there is no recognition of anything raising the hand in the air.

[Xain]

The decision happens without any indication of a 'decider'.

Good. Perhaps it 'just happened' . . .

The 'I' in the statement is only a conditioned assumption of what might be performing the choosing

Excellent.

If we take two examples:

Fingernails growing
Movement of the arm and hand

It is assumed there is no 'I' in control over the speed at which the fingernails grow - Yet, it IS assumed there is control over the limbs by an 'I'.
So what exactly is the difference between the two examples?
Could it be (as you suggest) a conditioned assumption?

The brain, spinal cord, and a multitude of motor neurons and neurotransmitters cause the muscles to contract but that is not a conscious realization, in the experience. The scientific explanation is only a memory of something learned.

Again, excellent.
In the same vein, what about 'I'? Is that 'a memory of something learned'?
And deeper still . . . who or what learned it?

Let us look at thoughts now . . .

Exercise:
Think a thought - Any thought will do

Inquire - In the experience of creating that thought can an 'I' be found that created it?
Can an 'I' be found that witnessed it?
Is there an 'I' to be found in the experience that is capable of controlling thoughts?
(If there was, could you choose to have pleasant thoughts all day?)

As we did with the hand example, is there any control or choice of thoughts at all? What 'I' has that ability?

Xain ♥

[OM-ar]

Inquire - In the experience of creating that thought can an 'I' be found that created it? Can an 'I' be found that witnessed it?

There is no "I" found in the creation or witnessing of the thought.

Is there an 'I' to be found in the experience that is capable of controlling thoughts? (If there was, could you choose to have pleasant thoughts all day?)

No 'I' is found to be controlling thoughts. Thoughts just arise and disappear unrestrained.

As we did with the hand example, is there any control or choice of thoughts at all? What 'I' has that ability?

Thoughts are not chosen or controlled by any specific individual thing.

[Xain]

So . . .

We examined the senses . . . we examined choice and control . . . we examined the thinking process.
Let's try some deeper questions now . . . following in exactly the same vein.

Was there any choice in coming here for guidance?

Was there an inherently existing separate self ('I') doing any of the inquiries that were asked? Ever?

Is there an inherently existing separate self here right now?
Can one be found?

Is 'I' anything more than a label, a conditioned response from memory?

If there an 'I' (a separate self) that could realise something?
What is realised?

Xain ♥

[OM-ar]

Was there any choice in coming here for guidance?

No, there was no individual 'self' that decided to receive guidance.

Was there an inherently existing separate self ('I') doing any of the inquiries that were asked? Ever?

No, the inquiries just appear. Any assumptions of a separate self doing the questioning are only thoughts.

Is there an inherently existing separate self here right now? Can one be found?

No, an inherently existing separate self cannot be found.

Is 'I' anything more than a label, a conditioned response from memory?

No, 'I' is only a label.

If there an 'I' (a separate self) that could realise something? What is realised?

No, there is no separate self that can realize something. What is realized is that a separate self is not in the experience.

[Xain]

Great replies, Omar.

How are things now?
Do you have any questions at this point?

Is it realised that 'I' is only (to try to use your words) just a label - A conditioned response?
At the same time, there is not an 'I' (separate self) that is conditioned or giving responses - It is just 'what is happening'?

I tend to reference 'I' as the contents of a thought (although that description is one of many).
The thoughts appear to be automatically believed . . . 'I am this body', 'I see a screen', 'I choose and raise my hand', 'I think thoughts'. These thoughts are assumed to be correct and are never questioned.
'I' is always assumed to be an inherently existing thing that has existence outside of thoughts. Yet . . . we look and it cannot be found. The finger pointing at the moon ('I') is not the moon . . .

Do you know the Bahiya Sutta by any chance? You being a buddhist . . .
If not, you might be interested in reading it . . . perhaps with new insight.

Communication can still happen. Dialogue between us does not need to change. Only to realise that this is just a flow of thoughts. Not that there are two inherently existing selves in communication.

Xain ♥

[OM-ar]

How are things now?

No perception shifts per se... but there is Increased awareness of no separate self.

Do you have any questions at this point?

Is there anything else to examine?

Is it realised that 'I' is only (to try to use your words) just a label - A conditioned response?
At the same time, there is not an 'I' (separate self) that is conditioned or giving responses - It is just 'what is happening'?

To realize something would mean not having thoughts that question its validity, right? If that is the case then yes, it is realized that 'I' is only an ingrained thought pattern. However, the realization is forgotten occasionally and thoughts of 'I' still occur.

Do you know the Bahiya Sutta by any chance?

Yes

Communication can still happen. Dialogue between us does not need to change. Only to realise that this is just a flow of thoughts. Not that there are two inherently existing selves in communication

Xian, the guidance is greatly appreciated.

[Xain]

No perception shifts per se... but there is Increased awareness of no separate self.

I understand. Good.

Do you have any questions at this point?
Is there anything else to examine?

Well the examination can be said to be a never ending process. There are always more things to look into.
The guidance here though has been to realise that there is no inherently existing seperate self . . . that 'I' is only ever a label, and never points or refers to something inherently existing.
Other things to examine may be 'other people', 'a world comprising of separate objects (the body being one)', 'time', 'space' etc. On a more basic level, a continuous negative thought pattern can be examined to realise it's lack of inherent truth.
Many believe that the linchpin of all realisations is the 'I', the separate self. Once this is seen, then all else can begin to crumble. I believe some Buddhists refer to the realisation of 'no separate self' as stream-entry. I like that. Once the stream has been entered, everything slowly starts to wash away of it's own accord.

To realize something would mean not having thoughts that question its validity, right?

Well . . . not necessarily.
We have examined the thought process itself . . . is the thought process controlled in any way? Is there a separate 'you' witnessing the thoughts or owning the thoughts?
To put it in a more general sense . . . If a thought appears questioning the validity of anything . . . what has it got to do with you?

However, the realization is forgotten occasionally and thoughts of 'I' still occur.

I understand what you refer to as a description.
However, who or what forgets? Who or what has forgotten or remembers anything?
Who or what could change this?
Again in a general sense, could this just be a process of life itself? What has it got to do with you?

Do you know the Bahiya Sutta by any chance?
Yes

In the seeing, only the seen.
In the hearing, only the heard etc

We look for a separate 'I' to be found in seeing? Can we find one? No.
Deeper still, can we find anything actively performing a function called 'seeing' or 'hearing'? No.
So in seeing, we do not find an 'I', nor anything doing 'seeing'. What is found is only 'what is seen'.
Hopefully that makes sense to you from the guidance we've done together.
I think there is a line relating to 'cognised' - This is my reference to the thought process I was mentioning a few lines up. Same deal.

Xain, the guidance is greatly appreciated.

You are very welcome.

But I don't want to rush ahead . . . I want you to be comfortable with what has been discovered (and I tend to push a bit with the questions to ensure it's really realised as deeply as possible here).
There are a further six questions I can ask as part of this process, but only when you are happy and clear that this has been realised.

Xain ♥

[OM-ar]

Other things to examine may be 'other people'

Yes, there is also a sense of apprehension using terms such as 'you', 'they'.

To put it in a more general sense . . . If a thought appears questioning the validity of anything . . . what has it got to do with you?

How is it evident that no separate self is realized?

However, the realization is forgotten occasionally and thoughts of 'I' still occur.
However, who or what forgets? Who or what has forgotten or remembers anything?

Maybe a better way of stating this would be that there is a lack of awareness of the realization of no self, during the moments where thoughts of 'I' occur.

Again in a general sense, could this just be a process of life itself?

Yes, it seems that the realization of no self needs to be reinforced habitually.

Hopefully that makes sense to you from the guidance we've done together.

Yes, the Bahiya Sutta is understood. Unfortunately, there was no total release from suffering.

[Xain]

How is it evident that no separate self is realized?

Evident to who?
It is evident when it is realised that there is no separate self that could realise anything.

Maybe a better way of stating this would be that there is a lack of awareness of the realization of no self, during the moments where thoughts of 'I' occur.

Again, I understand your reference.
I can only point.
What loses awareness of a realisation?
What is having these 'I' thoughts?
What could 'become more aware of no-self'?

Yes, it seems that the realization of no self needs to be reinforced habitually.

As a general description, yes - Each time the 'I' thought appears . . . it may be seen for what it is . . . just a label. Not referencing anything real.

I am unsure how old you are, but you could consider it in terms of mental conditioning. How many years have you been referencing 'I' as a real thing? Surely a big ask to expect this to disappear all at once?
So what can be done?
See that 'I' is only a label . . . nothing more.
Even if an 'I' thought appears as it believed . . . there is no separate believer. There is nothing that could change or control this process is there?

Having thoughts stop or change is a very common expectation of this realisation.
I can only ask you to inquire who is having the thoughts - And who or what could hope to change the pattern.

Unfortunately, there was no total release from suffering.

For who? Is there a 'real' sufferer? Or just a label?

Xain ♥

[OM-ar]

It is evident when it is realised that there is no separate self that could realise anything.

Ok, this is understood.

What loses awareness of a realisation? What is having these 'I' thoughts? What could 'become more aware of no-self'?

Nothing, to all the above.

So what can be done? See that 'I' is only a label . . . nothing more. Even if an 'I' thought appears as it believed . . . there is no separate believer. There is nothing that could change or control this process is there?

But what is 'seeing' that 'I' is only a label?

Having thoughts stop or change is a very common expectation of this realisation.

Yes, maybe this is the sticking point. It was expected that there would be a decrease in habitual conditioned thoughts of 'I' or an increase in frequency of no separate self awareness. Examining that last statement, it is seen that there is no separate self (NSS) expecting those results and NSS that can exert effort to change the pattern of thoughts. Would this not equate to some form of determinism, an absence of free-will?

Is there a 'real' sufferer? Or just a label?

Yes, there is no sufferer only sensation and the labeling as suffering.

[OM-ar]

Would this not equate to some form of determinism, an absence of free-will?

Actually, realization of no separate self would nullify the concepts of determinism / absence of free-will because there is no 'I' that has a fate that is pre-determined and there is no 'I' that does not have the ability to make choices...

There is no separate self only awareness

[Xain]

But what is 'seeing' that 'I' is only a label?

The big question . . .

Many different paths have different takes on this. This is beyond the scope of my guidance here.
I would not want to suggest a 'right answer' and instead, allow you take any path you deem appropriate for the enquiry. All we search for in this guidance is if something separate can be found - An 'I' (as it is usually assumed to be). We do not find one. Nor do we even find what is doing the looking for one either.

Some paths maintain that all is awareness / consciousness / experience. That is an acceptable 'thorn to remove a thorn'. These identifications can be used to good effect.

The only thing I would say (in reference to your Buddhist background) . . . what if any answer / identification 'of the mind' could not contain it? The mind / thought can only reference separate things - Objects / Stuff. Duality.
If what you are seeking is 'beyond comprehension' because it is not a separate 'thing' . . . then what?
Could peace be obtained by simply realising that one's true nature is beyond knowledge?
Who wants to know anyway?

Would this not equate to some form of determinism, an absence of free-will?

Determinism would still have to pertain to an objectified world . . . and an objective inherently existing 'I'?
Determinism is a perfectly useful model. But again, who or what acts according to previous acts?

Yes, there is no sufferer only sensation and the labeling as suffering.

Yes. But this does not mean suffering should simply be 'dismissed'.
Any suffering will be caused by thoughts being believed, and this can always be examined.

There are a further six questions I can ask as part of this process - This may bring up other areas for us to look into, but I want you to be clear at this point that you are certain there is no inherently existing 'self' or 'I'.
Who would be clear on such a thing anyway?

Xain ♥

[OM-ar]

Could peace be obtained by simply realising that one's true nature is beyond knowledge?

Yes, the peace of realizing that there is no separate self is not dependent on knowledge of true nature.

but I want you to be clear at this point that you are certain there is no inherently existing 'self' or 'I'.
Who would be clear on such a thing anyway?

Yes, it is clear that there is no inherently existing 'self' or 'I'.

[Xain]

Great, Omar.

Here are the first three of the six questions:

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

2) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference between 'now' and from before you started this dialogue? Perhaps give a report from the past few days (weeks?)

3) Was there a last bit that pushed you over? Made you look and realise? Perhaps something that was mentioned, or something that you looked into yourself?

Xain ♥